Colston Vandals Cleared

[fender62]

the judge just greenlighted it's ok to vandalise, if you don't like a statue or painting just knock it down or rip it up, history is there to be trodden on if it offends you...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10371949/BLM-protestors-not-guilty-criminal-damage-toppling-Edward-Colston-statue-Bristol.html

[davebro]

Crimes can be prosecuted when some of the perpetrators can't be found. There was a documentary yesterday where a gang of four gunned down a victim. All four were caught on CCTV but only 2 identified. Those 2 were tried & convicted.

[douglas9401]

We need to investigate the statue of limitation.

[ynnafymmi]

But your argument presents a lot of difficultys,Groms.The Hillsborough trial for example(there were hundreds of people there that day that could be prosecuted)and also the Derry Bloody Sunday murders(there were hundreds there that day who should also have been prosecuted).No-one is innocent but no-one is guilty either will surely just lead to anarchy.

[New Judge]

//nope, it exalts the right of everyone to be tried by a jury of their peers//

But that isn’t an absolute right and, as I said in OG’s “Law” question, I don’t see how they were permitted to opt for a trial in the Crown Court.

//I bet the defence did their best to ensure the jury was made up of people who were likely to have the correct political persuasion.//

Neither side has any influence over the jury selection.

But, as always, we don’t know all the facts. In fact we know very little of the court proceedings as the trial had been ongoing for some weeks. In particular, Criminal Damage is committed only if the perpetrator has no lawful excuse. We don’t know to what degree that was examined in court.

[davebro]

Can we take it that there would be a similar outcome for vandals damaging war memorials (in support of pacifism)?

[dave50]

Hyperthetically, if the jury was comprised of mainly individuals who were politically sympathetic with the accused actions and this influenced their decision over and above the fact that they had committed criminal damage so were considered not guilty. Would this be considered a fair trial?

[burlyshirley]

It seems to me that yobs have just been given a licence to run riot !

[Mozz71]

//Hyperthetically, if the jury was comprised of mainly individuals who were politically sympathetic with the accused actions and this influenced their decision over and above the fact that they had committed criminal damage so were considered not guilty. Would this be considered a fair trial?//

I thought all jurers were vetted by the courts to ensure they're not potentially biased towards either defence or prosecution?

[Mozz71]

//maybe re-write your post above? It's not very well spelled or constructed and so is difficult to understand.//

It really isnt and from what I can see, there's only one spelling error.

Try "If it is found that the jury were biased towards the defendants, could a mistrial be called?"

[ToraToraTora]

so, criminal damage is now legal, right oh! kin world has gone radio!

[ToraToraTora]

I'm just off tonight to tear down nelson Mandella's statue, he is after all a terrorist.

[Atheist]

As was Churchill and Bomber Harris. Times were dificult then, and they did what they thought would win the war, not what was woke.

[ToraToraTora]

the jury should be prosecuted.

[Mozz71]

Exactly what for Tora? They did what they felt was right. You can't keep retrialing until you get the decision you want. (Like a certain referendum from a few years ago)

[Spicerack]

Don't worry, Atheist. Khant has a crack team working on that project.
One of their academics was being interviewed on the radio.
Interviewer 'There are rumours that even Winston Churchill's statue could be removed. Would you agree with that?'
'Well' she said in an intelligent voice 'I've heard good things about him and I've heard bad things about him....but I haven't actually met him in person yet'. ;-/

[ToraToraTora]

mozz: "Exactly what for Tora? They did what they felt was right. You can't keep retrialing until you get the decision you want. (Like a certain referendum from a few years ago) " - well they are kin blind then, on what basis can they NOT be guilty?

[jim360]

It should be pretty obvious why it's a poor yardstick to judge jury corruption by deciding what the verdict should be in advance...

I'm surprised, to be sure. My initial reaction is that this may have been a case of jury nullification, although that's kneejerk speculation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

[Ellipsis]

> But that isn’t an absolute right and, as I said in OG’s “Law” question, I don’t see how they were permitted to opt for a trial in the Crown Court.

I think on C4 News earlier (probably available online somewhere) they said the claimed value of the damage (by the prosecution) was sufficiently high that the defence could ask for it to be tried in the Crown Court rather than a Magistrates' Court.